Big choices ahead: where to stage U.S. World Cup qualifiers
Difficult as this might be to swallow, one of the next big stories coming out of U.S. Soccer won’t have anything to do with Jurgen Klinsmann.
I know, I know … it’s all about Klinsi right now. Heck, I’ve written as much.
But this lies right around the bend in U.S. Soccer newsiness: the critical selection of venues for World Cup qualifiers.
The math has changed on this one, kids.
As we know, things move fast in the development of our game domestically. Nothing has been more important over the last 10 years than facility development in the professional game. As I wrote last week in another post, just 10 years ago this country had one – just one! – facility built specifically for Major League Soccer. Now there are 14. (In that total, I am counting facilities in Portland, Vancouver and Montreal, where major renovations were done expressly for MLS clubs.)
Previously, any facility built for MLS could count on reaping appropriate rewards: an MLS All-Star game, an MLS Cup final, a U.S. national team match or some combo thereof.
It’s not as simple now. It's just math (with more stadiums competing for roughly the same number of marquee events), plus the way some things are evovling. For instance, the 2012 MLS Cup final might have gone to one of the showy new parks, Livestrong Sporting Park, or possibly to Red Bull Arena, weather issues notwithstanding. Houston’s new facility or possibly even PPL Park in Philadelphia might be in the cue for that carrot on the facility-development stick. But a procedural adjustment now says Major League’s Soccer's top MLS Cup finalist will host the final, a change I have long advocated. So, there’s one less "biggie" to hand out.
The point is: competition is fiercer than ever for available gems. Not everyone will get a cherry on their parfait. And that makes World Cup qualifiers quite important. Read on for more whys and wherefores (and for where I’d like to see the qualifiers assigned).
The United States national team, assuming the Klinsi clan safely navigates semifinal World Cup qualifying stage, will host a total of eight qualifiers.
There are 11 Major League Soccer-specific facilities within U.S. borders. One has artificial turf, so toss it from the mix. (Yes, yes, I know that Portland once hosted a massive U.S. qualifier, back in 1997. I was there, it was among one of my top soccer experiences ever. But I’ve been told that temporary grass fields layered over arty turf are not an option for qualifiers. It’s still an option for friendlies, but no chances will be taken for qualifiers.)
So that leaves 10. Now you add other viable cities that have hosted qualifiers over the last four cycles. So we factor in Birmingham, Palo Alto, Washington, D.C., and Nashville.
There you have it. I count 14 before adding any potential wild cards. (I took away a couple of cities that did host qualifiers during that time, but are no longer viable, such as Gillette Stadium due to the artificial turf issue, and Richmond due to the lack of a suitable venue.)
So by my count, that’s 14 spots (at least) vying for eight potential dates. Other factors will be considered, of course, such as regional demographics and the connected ability to create true "home" crowds. But the raw numbers say this: there are big choices ahead in terms of picking winners and losers in the qualifier facility sweepstakes.
Where would I love to see the qualifiers? Here are my top five choices.
1. Livestrong Sporting Park: The best U.S. soccer park out there, one that already carries a proven ability to fill the place at the drop of a hat trick.
2. Red Bull Arena: Another great park, and it’s in the Big Apple. Enough said.
3. Columbus Crew Stadium: I love this place for its historical importance in U.S. qualifying efforts. Yes, it’s been lapped many times now in the "bells and whistles" department by newer facilities. But I still say it’s a fantastic place to make Mexico come play in winter months, if the schedule falls that way.
4. PPL Park: Same as above in terms of bringing Mexico, Central American or Caribbean sides in colder months. Plus, if fans in Philly can’t make visitors just a little uncomfortable, nobody can.
5. Rio Tinto Stadium: The smaller market helps make these qualifiers bigger events. You just can’t duplicate that feeling in bigger markets, where the game is swallowed up by everything else going on. That means something to the players and coaches, as Bruce Arena told us a few years ago during one tense, important qualifier in Salt Lake City.
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can those of us in the Pacific time zone just start our own team?
I kid, of course.
But seriously.
by jonat on Jan 16, 2012 11:20 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
seriously
there hasn’t been a west coast game in a city other than LA since USA vs. Grenada in Seattle in July 2009. Weeeeee Grenada lol. But hey at least Portland got a USWNT friendly last year ;)
Bay Area hasn’t had a USMNT match since China friendly in 2007.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 16, 2012 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
Build a stadium
Stanford’s stadium is probably the nicest Bay Area stadium and should get a look, but the Niner’s new stadium should bring the games back to the the Bay
a) you won't want to use the 18k new quakes stadium on USMNT b/c it's too small for a big show like USMNT
b) you could pack Stanfurd’s current state of the art 50k stadium with a USMNT game. The Quakes by themselves (no double header) got 42k there last season. For the England-USA WC game, 15-20k people showed up to AT&T park just to watch the game on the big screen in centerfield.
c) why put it in the new Niners stadium you will just be rewarding an NFL owner, our mortal enemies
d) they also played a friendly against Japan at AT&T in SF in 2006 so that is an option as well
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 16, 2012 2:23 PM EST up reply actions
NFL owners
(at least a few of them) are the one who a) built the MLS and b) provide those pretty stadiums that allow the big soccer games to happen, whether its USMNT, Euro friendlies, or a possible World Cup in the future.
AT&T Park probably works well for soccer, but in the summer months you have to schedule the game and the stadium transition for soccer around the MLB season, whereas the NFL and other football stadiums are sitting empty begging for events.
the niners owners have done dittly squat for MLS. they don't deserve a USMNT game.
AT&T could be used for a march/feb/jan match.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 16, 2012 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
And what have
the Giants owners done for the MLS? But that’s not the point. The Bay Area has been monkeying around and not getting a new stadium built and has lost out on many potential big soccer games (including being cut out of the US World Cup bid). This isn’t about putting money in the Niner’s pockets, it’s about getting a stadium done that will be able to be used for the NFL and big soccer games.
Till then, the Bay Area will be losing out on games to Nashville. That’s right, Nashville has a better stadium than the Bay Area has.
Actually ...
… the current thinking at US Soccer is that you DO use the smaller venues. Not only as reward in the bigger picture for developing proper soccer grounds, but it provides US Soccer a fighting chance in selling tickets to US Soccer fans. At bigger grounds, they lose more of that control, and the chances increase that the road teams has more supporters in the stands.
then why do we keep playing WC qualifiers in RFK?
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 16, 2012 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
That's fine for USA
vs Belize. But when US plays Argentina or Mexico, or Real Madrid comes to town, you gotta have the bigger stadium.
The city of Columbus asks, "Why?"
Esp. against Mexico.
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 17, 2012 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Who are we playing?
That 50k is more appropriate? I don’t see WCQs against Guatemala or Jamaica or the like selling those kinds of numbers anywhere in the US unless a substantial part of that is there to see the opposition.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
in February 2006
the year after MLS crapped all over the bay area soccer market by moving the Quakes 1.0 to Houston, 37k came out to see a meaningless friendly against Japan at AT&T. I don’t know about 50k but I bet you could get 37k-42k at Stanfurd for Guatemala or Jamaica. It’s a very nice new venue that casual sports fans would be excited to go to to see a national team game, no matter who we play.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Jan 16, 2012 5:45 PM EST up reply actions
live in Baltimore
and a game at Rfk.is a waste..that stadium is run down. i think cities/teams w soccer specific stadiums should be rewarded. i know that revenue rules all but having the game in a smaller, yet packed stadium could provide an actual atmosphere for a game. went to usa vs mexico.in philly last yr and the stadium was maybe half full (i know not a qualifier but still)..reward the teams+cities committed to soccer!
by Jimm Bmore on Jan 16, 2012 11:48 AM EST via Android app reply actions
I would like to see another qualifier come to Birmingham...
… but that’s just to fulfill my own selfish self-interest as a southerner. It’s maddening that there are virtually no venues suitable for a USMNT qualifier anywhere in the deep south. I mean, you’d think somebody in metro Atlanta could find a place to build a legitimate 30,000-40,000 seat outdoor stadium that could host soccer matches.
(And though one of the favorite experiences of my college days was watching the Olympic soccer medal rounds at Sanford Stadium in Athens, Georgia, that will absolutely never happen again. They had to dramatically alter the stadium just to make the field big enough for an international soccer pitch, and won’t ever be doing that again.)
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
Birmingham a no-go
No way Birmingham will be considered. They replaced the grass in Legion Field with turf 5 years ago. So that’s one less wild card. As I see it, LP Field in Nashville may be the south’s best hope for a WCQ match.
Yeah, I know.
That doesn’t mean I can’t grumble, though. :-)
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 17, 2012 1:44 PM EST up reply actions
Is Red Bull Arena really a viable option?
I meant it’s great for the setting and sightlines and what not, but it still has two big drawbacks:
1) A weeknight match against an opponent lacking panache in the greater NYC area could hurt attendance, just as it did for the building’s inaugural friendly against Ecuador in October. Ecuador combined with Greece to sell out Citi Field over the summer in a friendly, but couldn’t help the USMNT sell out RBA just a few months later. So the interest is there, but is it great enough to draw folks from NYC to Harrison? (This isn’t a “RBA can’t draw cause it’s in New Jersey” stump speech. The Red Bulls can draw just fine. BUT, the USMNT against a local favorite like Ecuador didn’t do the trick. What clubs would?)
2) Let’s not forget that RBA is still up against MetLife Stadium, too. Given the right opponent (i.e. Mexico), there’s no way East Rutherford doesn’t get thrown in the mix at RBA’s expense — especially if the USMNT vs. opponent combo can create enough interest to make the operating costs of the bigger building worth the return on investment.
Jagr? Seriously?
I think RBA for a crucial qualifier is a bad idea
It’s likely to be a small stadium that gets filled with the rival’s fans.
I’m leery about Philly even for the same reason. Though the cold weather effect could mitigate that.
The Mexico qualifier absolutely ‘should’ be played in Colombus, just because that place is in their heads as much as Azteca is in ours. That’s not an advantage we should be giving up.
You really don't think Americans could fill the stadium in Philly for a qualifier?
The Union sold out almost all of their games last year (I believe 14 of them)… so why would there be trouble filling that stadium for a USMNT game?
Play in Seattle and you get the home field advantage the USMNT deserves.
Just play the games at Safeco instead of the Clink. Real grass, large crowd capacity, and the rabid fan base to pack the place.
Hell, the march to the match from the GFC/ECS supporters bars would only be a block longer!
by DaveValleDrinkNight on Jan 16, 2012 8:15 PM EST reply actions
I can come to grips not getting a WCQ in Seattle,
But give us a freaking friendly! We’ll pack the place no matter what tiny country they bring in, just to prove that we should get more of them. Who wouldn’t want to see 60,000+ show up for a match vs. Trinidad & Tobago? Throw in a pre-game/halftime tribute to Kasey’s time with the MNT and it’s a guaranteed sellout…
BBVA Compass Stadium
In Houston will be a wonderful place to hold a qualifier. The only issue is that, at a capacity of 22K, it might be too small. However, Reliant has a proven track record of drawing a large crowd. Houston would be a wonderful place to play
"We don't care who finishes second." -- Celtic's Peter Lowrie
Actually...
There are three opponets that would be great to play there or in Dallas. Jamaica, Canada or Panama. We will see how many Panama fans there are in the Dallas area this year with Blas Perez playing for Dallas.
EL PASO FTW.
Viva el Sun Bowl!
Editor, Dawg Sports.
Go Dawgs!
by vineyarddawg on Jan 17, 2012 1:46 PM EST up reply actions

by 






